Technique Fixations

originally posted by Joe Dressner:
Wine evaluation is totally subjectiveWhy pretend otherwise. Spoofed wine is not spoofed because of a particular technique but because how it tastes. It could be any number of factors or finally it could just be terroir that can only produce spoof.

The point is that there is a large enough group of folks out there in America, Europe and Asia or share generally similar likes and dislikes when it comes to real or natural or authentic wines that a category has been defined that is totally arbitrary and without scientific definition.

It is wine, afterall!
Click to expand...

Subjectively speaking, Joe could not be more correct...he has just defined "spoof" wines in the same manner which I have when pressed for an answer. It is all about perceptions -- just like politics.

Bravo!

L
 
Screw precision of words in evaluating wines. In the end it is all about what you, me, and others deem to be good, mediocre, horrid or great. Stick with the folks you trust, until you can trust them no more.

I never knew Joe and I were so close in reagrd to all things spoofulated...suddenly the world seems smaller and more intimate.
 
Seems like only yesterday that Joe Dressner was arguing over on Therapy that there is little use in being concerned with what is the "best" wine. There was only understanding them.

New times, new site, new new new; I see, because now I am to understand that there is "great wine" and that those with the wrong intention may never reach that height.

Jumpin' Joe has left and gone away.
 
originally posted by Levi Dalton:
changesSeems like only yesterday that Joe Dressner was arguing over on Therapy that there is little use in being concerned with what is the "best" wine. There was only understanding them.

New times, new site, new new new; I see, because now I am to understand that there is "great wine" and that those with the wrong intention may never reach that height.

Jumpin' Joe has left and gone away.
Click to expand...

You're probably right.

I want to apologize to all concerned.

I agree the important thing is to understand wine. To become one with the juice. Or something I like that.
 
originally posted by Joe Dressner:
originally posted by Levi Dalton:
changesSeems like only yesterday that Joe Dressner was arguing over on Therapy that there is little use in being concerned with what is the "best" wine. There was only understanding them.

New times, new site, new new new; I see, because now I am to understand that there is "great wine" and that those with the wrong intention may never reach that height.

Jumpin' Joe has left and gone away.
Click to expand...

You're probably right.

I want to apologize to all concerned.

I agree the important thing is to understand wine. To become one with the juice. Or something I like that.
Click to expand...

You've made a strong first step...I'm told we are a forgiving nation.
 
originally posted by Joe Dressner:
Technique Fixations
The longer I am in the wine trade, the more complex and varied and subjective making great wine appears to me.
Click to expand...

This statement makes intuitive sense to me. Making great wine isn't easy; if it were, everyone would do it.

inaugeration
Click to expand...

That sounds particularly painful.

Mark Lipton
 
The "best" wine is the one that's in your glass right now that tastes delicious and matches the food that you're eating, your mindset, the weather, etc. The best wine for a braised pork shoulder on a 42 degree day in December will be very different from the best wine for seafood tacos on a 104 degree day in August.

Marshall
 
If "spoofed" just means "wine I don't like," well, as Humpty Dumpty said about meaning, "the question is who's to be master." Once upon a time one could distinguish between saying a wine was spoofed and saying that one didn't like the wine because one didn't like that style of wine or wine from that area or from that variety or whatever. Maybe that distinction can't hold, but it's a shame to lose it, if only because we are now left with that infamous concept, "the only thing that matters is what's in the glass."
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
If "spoofed" just means "wine I don't like," well, as Humpty Dumpty said about meaning, "the question is who's to be master." Once upon a time one could distinguish between saying a wine was spoofed and saying that one didn't like the wine because one didn't like that style of wine or wine from that area or from that variety or whatever. Maybe that distinction can't hold, but it's a shame to lose it, if only because we are now left with that infamous concept, "the only thing that matters is what's in the glass."
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you about the infamous concept.

The point I am making though is that spoof practice has evolved. The basic idea is to make something in extraction, color, concentration and heavily perfumed with familiar/monotone aromatics. Clumsy and expensive practices are one way to get there, but bowing to market pressure, many producers are getting there in a more natural way. This doesn't make the wines any more attractive to people who don't like the old-fashioned spoof.

Conversely, working naturally doesn't automatically make your wine sing. There are so many factors, variables and finally it is what you have in the fields that matters the most.

Or something like that.

Where is Hoke Harden when we need him?
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
If "spoofed" just means "wine I don't like," well, as Humpty Dumpty said about meaning, "the question is who's to be master." Once upon a time one could distinguish between saying a wine was spoofed and saying that one didn't like the wine because one didn't like that style of wine or wine from that area or from that variety or whatever. Maybe that distinction can't hold, but it's a shame to lose it, if only because we are now left with that infamous concept, "the only thing that matters is what's in the glass."
Click to expand...

Hi Jonathan

I'm not sure where the distinction is lost. There are wines I'll dislike because of their spoofy nature (regardless of technique), and others like warmer climate Chardonnay (for example) where I generally do not care for the weight and and falvor profile. I'd hope that I (and most others here) could spell out the differences...in this I have faith.

L
 
originally posted by Joe Dressner:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
If "spoofed" just means "wine I don't like," well, as Humpty Dumpty said about meaning, "the question is who's to be master." Once upon a time one could distinguish between saying a wine was spoofed and saying that one didn't like the wine because one didn't like that style of wine or wine from that area or from that variety or whatever. Maybe that distinction can't hold, but it's a shame to lose it, if only because we are now left with that infamous concept, "the only thing that matters is what's in the glass."
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you about the infamous concept.

The point I am making though is that spoof practice has evolved. The basic idea is to make something in extraction, color, concentration and heavily perfumed with familiar/monotone aromatics. Clumsy and expensive practices are one way to get there, but bowing to market pressure, many producers are getting there in a more natural way. This doesn't make the wines any more attractive to people who don't like the old-fashioned spoof.

Conversely, working naturally doesn't automatically make your wine sing. There are so many factors, variables and finally it is what you have in the fields that matters in the most.

Or something like that.
Click to expand...

OK, I get this now. I was just being slow. The real problem is the concept of "natural," hardly a surprise since that concept has come to grief in area after area since the 19th century. We can save "spoof" by opposing it not to "natural" but to something like "traditional for the area," recognizing that "traditional" is just a rule of thumb and that the reasons for preferring "traditional" to "spoofed" won't be objectively justifiable all the way down, though they can be rationally argued for up to a point. This has the advantage of clearing up my Chapoutier perplexity.
 
We can save "spoof" by opposing it not to "natural" but to something like "traditional for the area"...
Click to expand...

I don't know about this. The 'tradition' in most European wine regions is to make oceans of low-priced swill for casual drinking. A few key estates with excellent terroir or more serious ambitions produce the sliver of wines we talk about here.

If you try to get more specific about 'traditional techniques' then you don't get very far either because traditions have constantly changed over the centuries.

I think Joe's point about color, extract, and weight speaks to the style that many people (here) object to as spoof and I also take his point that such a style can come from a variety of winemaking methods.

However, I'm still not convinced that 'spoof' is the best way to communicate that critique. I usually just say I prefer high-acid and mineral wines that are usually mono-cepage and that seems to communicate the idea just fine without (necessarily) attacking and offending lovers of soft hot spoof. But maybe I need to work on that.
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
We can save "spoof" by opposing it not to "natural" but to something like "traditional for the area"...
Click to expand...

I don't know about this. The 'tradition' in most European wine regions is to make oceans of low-priced swill for casual drinking. A few key estates with excellent terroir or more serious ambitions produce the sliver of wines we talk about here.

If you try to get more specific about 'traditional techniques' then you don't get very far either because traditions have constantly changed over the centuries.

I think Joe's point about color, extract, and weight speaks to the style that many people (here) object to as spoof and I also take his point that such a style can come from a variety of winemaking methods.

However, I'm still not convinced that 'spoof' is the best way to communicate that critique. I usually just say I prefer high-acid and mineral wines that are usually mono-cepage and that seems to communicate the idea just fine without (necessarily) attacking and offending lovers of soft hot spoof. But maybe I need to work on that.
Click to expand...

For wine from regions that make low-priced swill, just as for wine regions that make wine in a style you don't prefer, just noting that you don't like those wines is sufficient. But it's useful to have a concept for wine made from regions with long traditions for making wine of a certain type that taste more like a set of wines from all over in something recognizably like "an international style" when that end is achieved by techniques not usual to the area prior to say 1990.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg: it's useful to have a concept for wine made from regions with long traditions for making wine of a certain type that taste more like a set of wines from all over in something recognizably like "an international style" when that end is achieved by techniques not usual to the area prior to say 1990.
Click to expand...

Yes, ok, I often use this shorthand as well.
 
A spoofulated wine is one where techniques are applied to meet a specified aesthetic target. By this definition, both Jambon and Harlan are spoofed.

A non-spoofulated wine is where techniques are employed to get the grapes safely to wine. By this definition, both Texier and Trimbach are un-spooofed.

This seems to be a rather easy distinction to make.
 
originally posted by VLM:
It is much simplerA spoofulated wine is one where techniques are applied to meet a specified aesthetic target. By this definition, both Jambon and Harlan are spoofed.

A non-spoofulated wine is where techniques are employed to get the grapes safely to wine. By this definition, both Texier and Trimbach are un-spooofed.

This seems to be a rather easy distinction to make.
Click to expand...

"Getting grapes safely to wine" is an aesthetic target. And of course this distinction depends on judging the intention of the winemaker, the best evidence of which will always be the wine s/he produces. So a definition in terms of the wine would be preferable. Otherwise OK though.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by VLM:
It is much simplerA spoofulated wine is one where techniques are applied to meet a specified aesthetic target. By this definition, both Jambon and Harlan are spoofed.

A non-spoofulated wine is where techniques are employed to get the grapes safely to wine. By this definition, both Texier and Trimbach are un-spooofed.

This seems to be a rather easy distinction to make.
Click to expand...

"Getting grapes safely to wine" is an aesthetic target...
Click to expand...

Not only that, but Trimbach and Texier both seem to have clear aesthetic targets and 'styles' that reflect the vintages but are nonetheless consistent to the 'house style' across vintages. Eric is of course much more recent and has changed over the years, so he can jump in and correct me if he has already made the move to Disorder, but he still seems to have a clear 'aesthetic style'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top